debating

I watched the vice-presidential debate today. Or, rather, it was more a speech exchange. I wish so dearly that high-level politicians would agree to a cross-examination style debate, trading both speeches as well as lines of questioning to each other. While the moderator's questions weren't known specifically by the candidates, there are really only 50 or 100 possible questions to be asked, if that. Every answer was well-prepared and practiced.

But, even then, Palin's transparency was blatant. Watch closely, and you can figure out much of what her advisors told her to say and how to act. "Emphasize the word 'maverick, Sarah", "Portray yourself as an untarnished outsider, Sarah," and so on. Biden, to his credit, sounded like he really knew what he was saying; by this I mean I sensed a depth of knowledge behind his beliefs that if meaningfully challened (which they weren't), he could respond in a nuanced and original way. Palin's depth of knowledge seemed not to reach past the talking points and pre-wrapped criticisms, as she tended to handle pursuasive rebuttals by simply repeating the same criticisms unaltered.

I don't like Palin, to say the least. A young earth creationist, who believes that humans and the universe are 6000 years old should, as Christopher Hitchens says, be outside buildings ranting with cardboard signs, not inside buildings holding powerful job posts. That sheer vacuum of basic factual knowledge about the world disqualifies Palin for any influential government post, in my opinion.